VIJAY BAHADOOR SHITALDEEN KORI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revisionist was tried and convicted for offences punishable under Sections 381 and 204 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year with fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months, for the offence punishable under Section 381 of the Indian Penal Code, and was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days, for the offence punishable under Section 204 of the Indian Penal Code, by learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court No. 9 while disposing of the Criminal Case No. 1596 of 1989 vide judgment and order dated 16. 8. 2000. The revisionist-convict challenged the said order by preferring Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2000 before the City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad and the City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad by judgment and order dated 9. 3. 2001 dismissed the said appeal upholding the conviction. Hence this Revision.

(2.) THE revisionist was alleged to have committed the theft of Rs. 97,617/- on 6. 5. 1989 from the office of the Ahmedabad Electricity Company situated at Sola Road, Naranpura, Ahmedabad. The complaint, in this regard, was filed by Mr. Ajay Patel with Naranpura Police Station, on the basis of which, offence was registered vide C. R. No. 283 of 1989 by Naranpura police. Thereafter, charge-sheet was filed on the basis of the information and material collected by the Investigating Agency. On the basis of the charge-sheet, Criminal Case No. 1596 of 1989 was registered with Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Ahmedabad. The accused came to be acquitted by the trial Court by judgment and order of acquittal dated 31. 1. 1991. The said order of acquittal was challenged before the High Court by preferring Criminal Appeal No. 774 of 1991. The order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate was set aside by the High Court by judgment dated 12. 10. 1998 and the case was remanded to the trial Court for fresh trial. Upon fresh trial, considering the evidence on record, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate recorded the conviction as stated hereinabove.

(3.) LEARNED advocate Ms. Farhana Mansuri appearing on behalf of Mr. S. A. Baqui for the revisionist submitted that there is discrepancy in the amount of theft shown in the complaint and the amount recovered from the revisionist. There is also discrepancy in the amount indicated in the complaint and the actual amount stolen. It was argued that the revisionist was described as the Peon by the complainant whereas, in fact, he worked as an Electrician. It was submitted that there was no witness to the incident and, therefore, both the Courts below erred in recording and confirming the conviction of the revisionist.